It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Smoking (Anti-Aircraft) Guns (of Los Angeles, 1942)

page: 15
89
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


i think your thread & posts would make for a classic case study in confirmation bias.

The way you reject any contrary evidence out of hand with very strange & implausible excuses shows you have a case of "Toltsoy syndrome"

The only person that can help you is yourself.

Of course the fact that you have to fall back on the unfalsifiable all encompassing coverup theory tells us you dont have any good evidence. And that is all too common in UFO cases which are bunk

[edit on 25-8-2009 by yeti101]




posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


and i can find you even more that say they saw planes in the sky.



So your conclusion for the LA 1942 was that it was planes.... well they must have been some damn good planes to have taken a barrage of ammunition and not fall out of the sky.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Total Package
 


oh dear lol. No my conclusion is that there was nothing in the sky. I'll break it down for you.

Pearl harbour just happened the US military stated in memos that another attack was overdue the threat is real (as seen by pearl harbour). An attack will happen. This is the mindset of 1942.

You have Air raid sirens , AA fire and search lights, as far as anyone on the ground is concerned this is real. Given those circumstances most witnesses who claimed to see soemthing say they saw planes.

Why? becuase during wartime, AA guns, search lights, air raid sirens when they look into the sky what do they expect to see? Planes of course. The commander of the artillary even said he thought he saw a group of planes then realised it was just smoke.

This is an example of the power of suggestion. When you have such great external influences in moments of high stress it can play tricks on the mind.


[edit on 25-8-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Total Package
 


oh dear lol. No my conclusion is that there was nothing in the sky. I'll break it down for you.


So break this down for me Yeti...

What was the object tracked on radar by 3 coastal units and confirmed by HQ?

If there was nothing in the sky, what were they tracking heading in from the West?



Originally posted by yeti101
Pearl harbour just happened the US military stated in memos that another attack was overdue the threat is real (as seen by pearl harbour). An attack will happen. This is the mindset of 1942.


Absolutely there was a mindset of war, I've mentioned before in this thread, that there was a shelling on an oil refinery up the coast just before the event. This mindset is completely incapable however of producing trackable radar signatures...


Originally posted by yeti101
You have Air raid sirens


Interestingly enough, ordered by the Army, resulting from tracking an object on Radar coming in from the coast...


Originally posted by yeti101
AA fire and search lights,


Interestingly enough, tracking and firing upon an object, confirmed on multiple radar units, coming in from the coast...


Originally posted by yeti101
as far as anyone on the ground is concerned this is real. Given those circumstances most witnesses who claimed to se soemthing say they saw planes.


When you use words like 'most' Yeti, it's usually best to actually provide some sourcing. As I've stated before, in my research I've found 2 witnesses who claim to have seen planes. This in NO WAY outnumbers the military personnel claiming to have sighted an object. Your use of the word 'most' here is unqualified. If you have evidence to qualify the use of the word, I'd like to examine it please.



Originally posted by yeti101
Why? becuase during wartime, AA guns, search lights, air raid sirens when they look into the sky what do they expect to see? Planes of course. The commander of the artillary even said he thought he saw a group of planes then realised it was just smoke.


Mis-identifications happen all the time, ask any soldier. This argument flatly does not address the real physical evidence we find in this case. The Radar Returns, the LA Times Photographer who visual tracked the object, driving like a madman through Baldwin Park to snap that Photo... This argument does not address the Air Raid Wardens, Police Officers, Fire Dept personnel, who actually dealt with the real events of the evening.


Originally posted by yeti101
This is an example of the power of suggestion. When you have such great external influences they can play tricks on the mind.


This sentence well describes your entire argument Yeti. Why is it exactly that you refuse to address the radar returns? Surely you must realize that they are scientifically obtained evidence of an object in the sky that evening, no? This piece of data cannot be ignored from an overall scientific analysis of the collected data, pertaining to this case.



Originally posted by yeti101
btw the vast majority of people saw nothing. But you dont hear quotes from them becuase well thats not very interesting from a news reporting POV.
[edit on 25-8-2009 by yeti101]


You've said this before, it's completely unqualified. The vast majority of people in Los Angeles that evening were never interviewed. So there is no way for you to say that the vast majority of people saw nothing. Likewise, I cannot say that the vast majority of people saw a spaceship.

What we can do is to examine the reports that are available, and the 'vast majority' of those reports do not include reports of 'nothing', or neither of us would be here having this debate.

In the future, with words like 'vast majority' and 'most people', you should use qualifying data to support your claim.

I really must say Yeti, if you are here in this thread (which has been the result of serious investigation by multiple researchers) to actually investigate this case, and to develop a theory that fits with the Evidence, then I'm glad to have you. Let's start including the Radar Returns in your theory.

-WFA



[edit on 25-8-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


Regarding the photo did you ever ask yourself the following question: How long were those searchlights in that configuration?

Do you think the answer to this question has any impact on whether or not an object is in that photo?



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


Regarding the photo did you ever ask yourself the following question: How long were those searchlights in that configuration?

Do you think the answer to this question has any impact on whether or not an object is in that photo?



One piece at a time Yeti. First you should address my question to you regarding the Radar Returns.

To be charitable, I'll answer your question, but I do expect an answer for mine...

Of course the length of time that the searchlights were in convergence would impact the visual message of the image. If they were aligned for but an instant, it would signify that they were not converging on anything in particular, but just accidentally crossing at some random point in the sky while searching.

The picture itself (since you've not posted any evidence suggesting how long the searchlights were in convergence, or not in convergence) gives us clues as to the likely hood of a 'chance' convergence.

Clue 1) There are at least 9 searchlights in convergence here, each emanating from a different section of the Los Angeles area coastline (miles and miles apart from each other, with independent radar and audio tracking systems and crews directing the lights and gunners). Now 1 or 2, or even 4 lights converging by chance I can believe, but 9? That begins to strain credibility, especially when taken into context (that in 1942, likely with some version of the 'Brownie' camera, an LA Times photographer managed to 'by chance' jump out of his car just in time to take this photo of a random beam convergence).

I personally witnessed (and documented with photo and video here at ATS) the most recent re-enactment of the event. There were several chance crossings, but it took a coordinated effort to converge the beams, by a crew of men. Each searchlight (as you can see in my documentation) has two control mechanisms, operated by different personnel, controlling the various axes of movement.

So what exactly is your point in this line of questioning? Do you have direct information (held secret for 60+ years now) that verifies that the beams were only in convergence for an instant on a 'chance' random moment?

If so, please share this information with direct sourcing, as it would pertain directly to this case.

If not, please qualify that you do not have any evidence of a 'chance' convergence.

Perhaps I should ask you this question as well:
"What do think is the likelyhood that 9 trained US Army anti-aircraft artillery batteries independently converged their searchlight beams on nothing, when their command HQ had verified radar tracking placing a solid object in their vicinity?"

Now that I've addressed your question, how about addressing the Radar Returns?

You know, the initial trigger that caused the Searchlights to be lit in the first place...

Thanks.


-WFA

[edit on 25-8-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


i'll give you an alernative explanation for the beam convergence let me know if you find it plausible.

1st lets remember a police station reported a downed plane when the army got there they found nothing. Its likely they saw a peice of burning flak debris falling and and made the jump to seeing a possible downed aircraft.

with the flak going off perhaps 2 or 3 of the searchlight operators saw soemthing unusual like 2 shells colliding or maybe even just a burst in the same area. Perhaps those 2 or 3 who seen that converged their beams on that location. Once you have 2 or 3 converged well its human nature for the other operators to see that and converge their beams too. They maybe thought "Hey those guys see something ill point my beam there too" With each beam that joins the pressure mounts for the rest to join. If you were that 9th searchlight and you had 8 converged would u refuse to join?


then we have all beams converged maybe 10 seconds maybe 30 seconds. Then they go back to combing the sky when they realise nothings there.

Do you think thats possible?

[edit on 25-8-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Reading through the thread, I felt that LazyGuy's reporting on an eyewitness interview cited in my original bibliography was worth bringing to light. Sometimes important information can get lost in a large thread. And since the current theme is eyewitness reports, this extensive interview should well be included in our review...

Here is a sample from LazyGuy's post:


Originally posted by LazyGuy
Source

The planes we'd heard were not in sight, but what captured our rapt attention was a silvery, lozenge-shaped "bug," as my mother later described it, whose bright glow was clearly visible in the searchlight beams that pinpointed it. Although it was a clear, moonlit night, no other details were visible, despite the fact that, when we first saw it, the object was hanging motionless almost directly overhead.



Source

As we watched it, open mouthed, the object, apparently none the worse for the plethora of three-inch, 12.8 pound anti-aircraft rounds fired at it, began to move slowly to the southeast over Redondo Beach, where we lost sight of it. Either our gunners were woefully inept, despite all the practice they'd had in recent weeks or it was invulnerable to attack.



The full post is here, for those who would like to further review this interview:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

-WFA



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


Possible and plausible are two very different things. Plausible and likely are again very different terms. Likely and fitting with the observable evidence are two things again entirely...

So sure, it's possible, but not plausible, likely, or consistent with the observed evidence...

Yeti to be perfectly honest I'm having a difficult time taking theories that do not account for the Radar Returns seriously.

Do you have a theory that factors in this data?

-WFA



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


In a new examination of the CUFON Report detailing the information learned in their FOIA request, I found the following:



This cited source indicates that ground based radar was primarily in use to guide the searchlight beams, as opposed to being specifically dedicated for use by the gunners.

The full report is here:
www.cufon.org...

More to come as new information emerges...

-WFA

[edit on 25-8-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 



but when that picture was taken there were no reports of radar targets being detected. So i dont think the radar was guiding those search beams.

p.s yes those radar returns off the coast are a mystery, its disapointing there is no visual confirmation of that object in that report.


[edit on 25-8-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 



but when that picture was taken there were no reports of radar targets being detected. So i dont think the radar was guiding those search beams.

p.s yes those radar returns off the coast are a mystery, its disapointing there is no visual confirmation of that object in that report.
[edit on 25-8-2009 by yeti101]


Simply because further radar returns went un-reported, does not mean that they did not exist. Also, it's important to understand that each Radar unit also had an audio tracking system that worked as a secondary guidance system. (See images posted earlier in thread, with men with wierd rubber listening tubes on their ears, hooked up to huge amplifiers).

The above cited reference states flatly that according to HQ, 8 of the 9 available coastal radar units were supporting the searchlight beams.

Further, here is a selection from the above cited CUFON report, wherein the Radar contacts are mentioned, and a specific radar operator is mentioned. I'll do some searching in the public record for this operator, and see if anything turns up...

In this clip, you will see that clearly the Radar Returns are what triggered the blackout, initiating the event itself. The object was tracked up to 2:27 AM by HQ, which places the object's trajectory in a manner consistent with the LA Times reporter's image to be taken as it moved over Culver City.




Further reports indicate that the object remained motionless over Culver City for an extended period (still looking for exact time from reports...).

More to come as new information emerges...

-WFA



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
p.s yes those radar returns off the coast are a mystery, its disapointing there is no visual confirmation of that object in that report.
[edit on 25-8-2009 by yeti101]


Check this clip to the contrary:



That was on a brief search of the same document that took me about 2 minutes. There were many sightings visually, of both the object and of several objects (referred to as planes in many reports, and described as silvery winged craft descriptively...)

I'll post more direct references as they emerge...

-WFA



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


yes in the official report there are no accounts of ufos. Only planes ranging in number from 1 to 50. That particular reports states "planes" more than 1. This doesnt fit the single mothership description touted by BOLA ufo advocates.



[edit on 25-8-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 

yes in the official report there are no accounts of ufos. Only planes ranging in number from 1 to 50. That particular reports states "planes" more than 1. This doesnt fit the single mothership description touted by BOLA ufo advocates.
[edit on 25-8-2009 by yeti101]


In point of fact, an unidentified plane (or several) qualifies as a UFO, especially when taken in context (no US Planes launched, no Jap planes launched, 60+ years of declassified military activity supporting these facts.)

The report clearly says 'unidentified planes'.

Further, the report of the Balloon/Flare is also referred to as a 'dirigible', strange mistake to make. Even stranger that it's in quotes in the official report, after failing to be properly identified as a balloon in the initial reporting.

The balloon was sighted in Santa Monica at 3:06 AM, the 'Object' at that time was already over Culver City. We must view reports in context (including time and location) in order to fully comprehend what those reports are saying... That being said, regarding the 'balloon'...

Check this clip out, from the CUFON report:



What kind of dirigible (known in all of human history) could withstand such an assault? None that I know of, it's very interesting indeed.

None of it I might add lends credence to your earlier theory that there was nothing at all in the skies that evening...

More to come as new information emerges...

-WFA



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 

This doesnt fit the single mothership description touted by BOLA ufo advocates.
[edit on 25-8-2009 by yeti101]


I found it noteworthy that you decided to use the term 'mothership' in this sentence...

It's not a term I use personally. In terms of this case, I usually refer to it as the 'Object'.

The term mothership co-incidentally implies a large craft that houses/transports smaller craft though, doesn't it?

Interesting term to use when arguing against the possibility of just such a thing...

-WFA



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Well, I'm out of research time for today, however there is something sticking on my mind, and perhaps one of ATS's intrepid researchers would like to pick up this line of research on the 'night shift' ?


Earlier, the clip mentioning the word 'dirigible' in quotes, is cited as having come from this report (in the CUFON Report's Bibliography):

"App B, Doc 28, incl #1, Page 6"

Perhaps one of our researchers will produce this section of document while I'm away from the site this evening. If not, I'll give it a proper searching myself when I have time tomorrow


Reading the specific text of the report should shed more light on the use of that term in the CUFON Report...

-WFA



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Hmm, less bigfoot/yeti, more troll methinks..

Anyhoo..

I've read an awful lot of this thread, not all completely in depth (I've got to got to work tomorrow!), but the most persuasive evidence for me are the radar accounts coupled with the main photograph.

Something solid was present, and it seemed immune to the AA/shell fire.

Another thing which occurred was that even if there was enough smoke/cloud to block the searchlight beams, you would have ended up with a far larger glow in the picture than is seen - shine a bunch of lights into fog/dry ice and you'll see what I mean - the more lights, the bigger the glow. However the witness statement of C. Scott Littleton appears to rule that out:



The two of us stood side by side in front of the house, huddling together in the chill night air and staring up into the sky. The planes we'd heard were not in sight, but what captured our rapt attention was a silvery, lozenge-shaped "bug," as my mother later described it, whose bright glow was clearly visible in the searchlight beams that pinpointed it. Although it was a clear, moonlit night, no other details were visible, despite the fact that, when we first saw it, the object was hanging motionless almost directly overhead. Its altitude is hard to estimate, especially after all these years, but I'd guess that it was somewhere between 4,000 and 8,000 feet. This may explain why we didn't see the orange glow reported by several eyewitnesses in Santa Monica and Culver City, where the object was apparently much lower.


no cloud, no glow, so where did the beams go?

Another possible point to follow up on:



But whatever it was, it certainly wasn't acting aggressively. Rather, it simply made its stately way across the sky. Shortly before we lost sight of it - the object subsequently appeared over San Pedro and Long Beach before finally disappearing over the ocean somewhere off southern Orange County - we again heard the unmistakable sound of aircraft engines. By that time, the bombardment had largely petered out, and a flight of Army interceptors, probably based at Mines field (today the site of Los Angeles International Airport), approached from the northeast and buzzed off to the southeast, apparently chasing the object.

It was now almost 4:00 a.m. Precisely how long we'd stood there is anybody's guess, though I suspect that the whole episode, from our leaving the shelter to meeting my father as he returned to house for good, lasted about twenty-five minutes. As I recall, the firing ceased altogether shortly thereafter (the "all clear" didn't actually sound until 7:30 a.m.), but nobody went to bed that night.


If there was an attempted intercept as indicated, surely there should be a sniff of a report somewhere?

quotes source: www.sott.net...

Regardless of my ramblings, this is one of the best threads I've ever read on ATS, well done WitnessFromAfar


[edit on 25-8-2009 by Stoo]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Hello Stoo, and thank you for your in depth research and analysis into this case!


I was doing some digging today, looking for some of the reports that were assembled and sourced from to create the overall report excerpted in the CUFON online report.

I realized last night while thinking about that line of research, that to the layman all of this 'report' terminology can perhaps be confusing. To clarify, I'll try to lay it out as I understand the process:

CUFON Report - This is an Adobe .pdf version of an assembled report titled, "The History of the 4th AA Command, Western Defense Command, Jan 9 1942 to July 1 1945".

As I understand it, the above cited report was declassified as a result of a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) Request by CUFON, fulfilled by the United States Government.

This report is actually a 'point-by-point' review of events during the stated timeframe, that drew from myriad initial reports, citing each individual report directly through the use of footnotes.

This is a good and bad thing, for a researcher. On the good side, it means that nearly every statement made in the overall report (The History of the 4th AA Command...) has a full report from which that statement was drawn, in existence somewhere. There is further supporting data contained in these initial reports, that will certainly help us to clarify the statements made in the overall report.

On the bad side, this means that each of these cited sources are now on the researchers 'target' list.
We, as responsible investigators, should attempt to assemble as many of these supporting reports as possible, and link to them here in the thread. If anyone comes across such a report, please let us know!

In researching the initial report I mentioned earlier on this page (regarding the 'dirigible' statement...) we're looking for this document:
App B, Doc 28, incl #1, Page 6

Interestingly enough, when I began to search for this document, new information began to come forth...


For example, in the 'End Notes for Chapter 3', linked here:
www.history.army.mil...

We find the following cited source:
"46 Antiaircraft Artillery Def Project, ETO, 1942, 10 Jan 42, submitted to the General Staff by Ltr, GHQ to TAG, 4 Feb 42, AG 660.2 AA (1-1-40), sec. I; various papers, WPD 4627-5, especially Memo, CofCA for WPD, 21 Feb 42."

This source (#46 down the page...) clearly seems to contain reference data from the Military pertaining to the Battle of Los Angeles, if the reference indicator at the end of the source is accurate...

Also of note from this page are:
"48 Terrett, The Emergency, ch. V, and app pp. 318-25, in which the Army radars of World War II are identified and described ."

and:
"52 Memo, Col Sherrill for ACofS WPD, and atchd tab A, 8 Jan 42, WPD 4187-25; Incl to Signal Corps Memo, 14 Jul 42, title: Distribution of Ground Radar Sets in Cont U.S., cited in Thompson et al., The Test, p. 290."

and:
"53 History of the Western Defense Command, vol. III, ch. 10, contains a map of the overwater coverage of the twenty-five radar installations maintained along the west coast in 1943."

and:
"76 Stimson Diary, entry of 18 Dec 41; Ltr, SW to Chairman, Senate Comm on Military Affairs, 30 Mar 42, OCS 15491-133; Memo, Chief, Admin Services, SOS, for G-1, 30 May 42, AG 383 (5-30-42) (2) ; WD Relationships With OCD, p. 12."

and:
"104 See, for examples, Memo, CofS for ASW John J. McCloy, 24 Feb 42, OCS 15450-15; Ltr, CofS to Hon. Warren R. Austin, U.S. Senate, 28 Feb 42, WDCSA 381 Nat Def (2-28-42)."

All of the above cited references may contain relevant supporting data, pertaining directly to this case...

I also found this today:
ibiblio.org...

Wherein I found this description:
"Radar, though never completely reliable, normally permitted the operation of Army guns and searchlights at their maximum range instead of at a visual range determined by weather conditions.17"

The 17 at the end of that sentence was a source citation reading:
"17. Hist of EDC, p. 29; for types of harbor defense radar, see Dulany Terrett, The Signal Corps: The Emergency, UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR II (Washington, 1956) (hereafter cited as Terrett, The Emergency), app. "

This source might also prove a valuable source of information on Radar/Gunner operations protocol.


Well crew, unfortunately, that's all the time I have for today in the research dept. I'll certainly be tracking these sources down in my free time, and I hope that any of you out there with a keen eye for research will help to uncover these reports for further examination here at ATS!


More to come as new information emerges...

-WFA



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Of note from my research thus far this morning...

" ...a careful assessment of the aviation strength and capabilities of Germany, Italy, and Japan. Despite their ominous and growing air power, these nations in 1939 did not have any planes capable of even a one-way transoceanic flight with a bomb load for a direct attack on the United States, and as late as February 1942 Germany had only a few planes that could have been used for this purpose. If the United States was successful in preventing the establishment of hostile air bases in the hemisphere, then only carrier-based or tender-based planes could pose a real threat of air attack. Japan had six carriers built, and Germany was constructing two;"

Source:
ibiblio.org...

This quote has bearing on an earlier discussion in this thread, examining possible terrestrial aircraft that could have been responsible for for the initial radar returns reported in the event.

This quote supports the evidence thus far obtained, that cites the locations of Japanese and German carriers during February of 1942 (nowhere near the United States...)

This quote further supports the evidence thus far obtained, by discounting the possibility of attack from an independent bomber (stating that no plane existed at the time that was capable of transoceanic flight, and of the few German planes that could make the trip, none could make a return trip to friendly soil from such a run.)

Weight is another factor here, illustrated above, that I had not considered upon my initial investigations into planes of the era. As readers will note, my earlier comparisons dealt with airspeed, and comparison to the radar return data in that study eliminated the possibility of Human made craft causing the radar returns.

Using weight/fuel capacity as a secondary test adds support to the argument that no known Human craft (in existence in February of 1942) could perform in the manner documented during the infamous Battle of Los Angeles.



More to come as new information emerges...

-WFA




top topics



 
89
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join